Tony Blair: The War Criminal Who Got Away

“O villain, villain, smiling, damnèd villain!That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.”

— Shakespeare, Hamlet

By Peter Oborne,
Daily Mail, July 5

On March 20, 2003, prime minister Tony Blair ordered British Forces into action against Iraq after telling us Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to Britain and the world.

Thirteen years later, we know the full consequences of Mr Blair’s decision: 179 brave British servicemen and women were killed, and hundreds more were maimed or suffered psychological trauma. Tens of thousands of Iraqis died as the fall of Saddam led to a vicious sectarian war between the country’s Shia majority and Sunni minority.

President Barack Obama has pointed out that the destruction of Saddam has led to the rise of Islamic State, the most vicious and terrifying terror group the world has known.

So Iraq has turned into one of the greatest disasters in modern history. It is a far bigger error than Sir Anthony Eden’s infamous decision to attempt to reclaim the Suez Canal from Egypt in 1956.

In retrospect, it can be seen as the worst mistake in British foreign policy since Neville Chamberlain struck his notorious deal with Hitler in Munich in 1938.

Indeed, the way in which Tony Blair’s government took us to war in so dishonest a fashion surely marks 2003 as the point when the British people’s already shaky faith in the political class began to crumble into dust.

Now, we need desperately to learn the lessons. And yet for 13 years, the British establishment has covered up the truth about Iraq.

There have been four botched inquiries (including the infamous judicial report chaired by Lord Hutton into the still mysterious death of Dr David Kelly, the government scientist who was found dead in July 2003 after being exposed as the source of claims by the BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan that New Labour had ‘sexed up’ the threat from Saddam Hussein).

The fifth inquiry, Sir John Chilcot’s report, was announced by the then prime minister Gordon Brown in June 2009. It was meant to reach a definitive judgment on the war — and was supposed to last for little more than a year. Then it ran into the sands of bureaucratic inertia and obstruction.

Tomorrow, this monumental investigation, which is said to run to 2.6 million words — almost five times longer than Tolstoy’s War And Peace — will finally see the light of day.

Yet there are already reasons to doubt whether Sir John is capable of reaching the fair-minded verdict that will enable the nation — and above all the families of the heroes who died serving their country — to put the Iraq tragedy behind us.

According to advance leaks, Sir John will apportion the blame very widely with several dozen ministers, officials and military figures coming in for criticism.

These same reports also suggest a great deal of the report will concentrate on mistakes made during the occupation of Iraq rather than the decision to go to war in the first place.

If these leaks are true, they suggest that Sir John’s report, like the whitewashed reports that have already been published, will lack focus.

There are in truth only a handful of crucial points it should address. Did Tony Blair lie in order to make the case for war? Was the war legal?

Did the war — as Tony Blair promised it would — make Britain a safer place?

Crucially, the vast bulk of the evidence presented to Chilcot is available for all to see.

This means that any careful and well-informed observer can reach his or her own conclusions.

— § —

The Iraq war expert Dr David Morrison and I have spent months poring through the evidence to show the conclusions that Sir John Chilcot must surely make if he is true to the evidence put before him.

Let’s start with the question of whether Tony Blair deceived the British people in order to make the case for war.

Mr Blair has consistently asserted that he did not lie and that he acted in good faith. For example, the former prime minister told the American TV channel CNN that he apologised ‘for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong’.

Here, Mr Blair was placing the blame on the British intelligence services for producing erroneous information which he, as prime minister, innocently passed on to the British public.

This account of events does not, however, stand up to scrutiny. It is very easy to prove Mr Blair did not simply reiterate what he was told by the intelligence services.

The fact is he exaggerated and misrepresented the intelligence that he received from the Joint Intelligence Committee.

— § —

Evidence available to Sir John Chilcot shows Joint Intelligence Committee assessments sent to the prime minister about the threat posed by Iraqi weapons programmes were cautious.

They stated that ‘intelligence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programmes is sporadic and patchy’.

By contrast, Tony Blair claimed “we know that he [Saddam Hussein] had stockpiles of major amounts of chemical and biological weapons, we know that he is trying to acquire nuclear capability, we know that he is trying to develop ballistic capability of a greater range”.

In truth, evidence presented to the Chilcot inquiry shows that the then prime minister repeatedly exaggerated and made false claims about the threat posed by Saddam as the war approached.

He did so in the notorious dossier on the threat posed by Saddam, published on September 24, 2002.

Incredibly, he lied to Parliament in his famous speech on March 18, 2003, on the very eve of war.

In this address, Mr Blair systematically distorted the work of the United Nations weapons inspectors, who at the start of March had published a document on the state of knowledge of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

Tony Blair and his foreign secretary, Jack Straw, used this document shamelessly, giving the impression that it contained new and damning evidence that Iraq possessed proscribed weapons.

In reality, it contained little or nothing new.

Crucially, it did not claim that Iraq possessed dangerous weapons or weapons-related materials, merely that certain material was unaccounted for.

Shockingly, Mr Blair did not divulge to Parliament that Kamel also said that all Iraq’s weapons had been destroyed.

To sum up, Tony Blair deliberately deceived the British people and Parliament in order to substantiate his decision to go to war.

We will not know until tomorrow whether Sir John Chilcot will conclude that Blair lied. But what we can say for certain is that a mountain of evidence exists that the British prime minister did exactly that.

The second crucial judgment facing Chilcot is whether the war was illegal — though some already have grave doubts that he will answer this point definitively.

Yet here again the evidence before him is unambiguous.

It is a fundamental principle of international law that states are prohibited from using force except in self-defence or unless its use is formally authorised by the UN Security Council.

No country was attacked by Iraq in March 2003, and therefore there were no grounds to go to war with Iraq on the grounds of self-defence.

The Security Council never authorised military action to disarm Iraq of its so-called “weapons of mass destruction”.

However, at most four of the 15 members of the UN Security Council were in favour of military action against Iraq in March 2003. Every single member of the British Foreign Office legal department was convinced the war was unlawful.

There is therefore no serious doubt that the attack on Iraq by the United States and the UK in March 2003 was illegal, and therefore a war of aggression.

The evidence that Tony Blair lied to Parliament and the British people in order to make the case for an illegal war is very strong indeed. Very serious and senior police and former officials are convinced this was the case. They include Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector at the time of the Iraq invasion.

When I asked Mr Blix whether he believed that Tony Blair had misrepresented the facts to make the case for an illegal invasion, he said that he did.

Very few people deserve to emerge well from the Iraq Inquiry. However, I believe that one of them should be Eliza Manningham-Buller, the then Director General of MI5, the domestic intelligence service.

— § —

Dame Eliza told Chilcot that she warned Tony Blair in advance that the invasion of Iraq would increase the threat to Britain from the terrorist group Al-Qaeda, and radicalise increasing numbers of British Muslims.

When she appeared in front of the Iraq Inquiry, she was asked: ‘To what extent did the conflict in Iraq exacerbate the overall threat that your service and your fellow services were having to deal with from international terrorism?’

She replied: ‘Substantially.’ After the publication of the report, many people will want to know whether Mr Blair can be tried as a war criminal. This question is well worth considering. After World War II, the victors established an international military tribunal at Nuremberg to try leading Nazis.

Article Six of the tribunal’s constitution specified the crimes falling within its jurisdiction. First and foremost was the ‘planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression’.

As a prime mover in the invasion of Iraq, Blair could reasonably be accused of committing such a crime. So, too, could the then U.S. President George W. Bush.

In theory, this means that there’s a case for putting Blair on trial as a war criminal.

But the only body that could conceivably have tried him was the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague.

At the time of the 2003 Iraq invasion, the UK was a party to the ICC, which had begun operating in July 2002.

It had the power to try even heads of state for genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity. But as Lord Goldsmith, the Labour Attorney General, had advised Blair just before the Iraq invasion, the court had ‘no jurisdiction over the crime of aggression’.

Therefore, in leading the UK to war against Iraq, Blair knew he had nothing to worry about from the ICC.

(How bitterly ironic that Downing Street is now having to warn the court in The Hague that Chilcot’s report should not be used as a basis to prosecute British soldiers — never mind the man who sent them to war.)

While we will learn more about the actions of Tony Blair tomorrow, we must not forget how the way he behaved has influenced politicians who have come after him.

The delay in the publication of the Chilcot Inquiry has had deadly consequences, because the British government has continued to make the same mistakes that were made in the run-up to the Iraq invasion.

As Chilcot’s inquiry has dragged on, British forces have been involved in fresh foreign engagements in Libya, in 2011, and Syria more recently, carrying out bombing missions in both countries, as well as being drawn back into Iraq.

The lessons of the Iraq War — as set out in an official inquiry — would have been relevant in all these cases.

— § —

By a dark irony, the timing of the Chilcot report now that it’s finally with us could not be more appropriate. It comes against the sombre background of the total collapse of trust in the governing class.

This came to a head in the decision of the British people to defy all the main political party leaders and vote Britain out of Europe two weeks ago.

Faith in politics has never been lower, and this collapse in trust can be dated very precisely to the decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003.

The British people and Parliament believed the claims made by its most senior politicians and foreign policy advisers.

It followed them blindly to war, with consequences we still have to live with today.

This is why the Chilcot Inquiry matters a great deal. It is the last chance for the British Establishment to show it can learn the lessons of its failures — and hold those who fail to account.

If Sir John Chilcot and his inquiry fail to achieve this, it will be the final proof that our system of democratic government is broken.

“Bad news, Mangler. He got away with it.”

34 thoughts on “Tony Blair: The War Criminal Who Got Away”

Peter Osborne has mastered the art of simultaneous ventriloquism from both sides of the mouth

So Iraq has turned into one of the greatest disasters in modern history.
…
In retrospect,it can be seen as the worst mistake in British foreign policy since Neville Chamberlain struck his notorious deal with Hitler in Munich in 1938.

Indeed, the way in which Tony Blair’s government took us to war in so dishonest a fashion surely marks 2003 as the point when the British people’s already shaky faith in the political class began to crumble into dust.

Got that bit?
Taking “us” (UK) to war was dishonest but not as dishonest as Chamberlain NOT taking “us” to war against the history’s most upright and honest government.

Concentrate on the central focus of the article instead of blathering on about a piddling minor issue to do with Hitler and Chamberlain. Do you agree that Blair is a war criminal or not? Do you agree that Oborne is right to say so?

If so, why are you losing your cool? You expect every author featured on this website to be a paid-up Hitler supporter? No mainstream authors may be published by the Darkmoon website without your Highness’ permission?

Most people would see this article as a excellent denunciation of Blair. It has also been published on the Truthseeker site, an excellent site that does not need to provide you with its credentials.

As far as I can make out, this website would have to shut down completely if every single author it published had to be vetted in advance for his pro-Hitler views. I think it should be praised for publishing the articles it does, mainstream as well as non-mainstream, since it is obviously at pains to present the truth. It cannot possibly represent the precise viewpoints of every single commenter on this site, given that so many of the commenters are constantly at each others’ throats and can barely agree about anything.

According to which, Neville Chamberlain is a greater WAR criminal than Tony Blair.
Or should I stick with the term MISTAKE in British foreign policy, which effectively exonerates Blair because the poor guy made a mistake.
You know, everyone makes mistakes, it is human.
My mistake is to believe in and strive for integrity and moreover insist that the term “total integrity” is a redundancy, ie, linguistic violation (where is Grammar Fiend when we need him).

That’s the trouble with logic: if you follow through flawlessly, you end up with truth, if you don’t, you don’t.

In any case, I think the article is an excellent article and makes the case against Blair perfectly. The fact that the author fails to end the article with the words HEIL HITLER! does not make it a bad article — with all due respects to Lobro! 🙂

As far as I can make out, this website would have to shut down completely if every single author it published had to be vetted in advance for his pro-Hitler views.

I did not demand that Oborne hold PRO-Hitler views.

I do demand that he refrain from canonizing his ANTI-Hitler views into an immutable, absolute, manifest truth, without need for any elaboration, rejecting a priori any possibility of refutation or counter-argument.
Why am I so strident on this point?

Because what is the difference between unquestionable ANTI-Hitler dogma and unquestionable PRO-Holocaust dogma?

Please explain this to me, I am ordinarily stupid and my IQ seems to have slipped a few notches recently, the cerebral aches and pains that come with advanced age.

Once you do explain it, we’ll sing in unison:“Iraq invasion was the greatest crime since Holocaust”

Once you do explain it, we’ll sing in unison:
“Iraq invasion was the greatest crime since Holocaust”

Can’t wait.

You have made my point for me. If Oborne is actually saying what you say he is saying — “The Iraq invasion was the greatest crime since the Holocaust” — then clearly Oborne believes in the Holocaust. In other words, Oborne is NOT the Holocaust denier you would like him to be.

You say, “I did not demand that Oborne hold PRO-Hitler views.” But here you are finding fault with Oborne for NOT being a Holocaust denier!

In other words, Lobro, you are making unrealistic demands on the administrators of this website: that they should only publish articles written by Holocaust deniers. As I said before, they would have to shut down this website completely if the only writers they published had to be vetted in advance for their pro-Hitler and anti-Holocaust views.

If you go to the Occidental Observer, an excellent website that does its best to avoid articles by loonie extremists, you will not find a single pro-Hitler article. And not a single article promoting Holocaust denial. The Comment section may contain such material, the articles never.

Anonymous commenters don’t have to fear the loss of their jobs and reputations. Or the assassin’s bullet. Website owners do and so they need to be more cautious.

This website needs to be free to publish excellent mainstream articles — just as the Truthseeker does — and not be intimidated by commenters who insist on more exacting standards: i.e., that the only writers it should publish are Holocaust-denying Hitler fans.

Unfortunately, there are certain fanatics on this site who insist that the ONLY writers you can trust are

— Holocaust deniers
— Hitler backers
— Writers who NEVER flinch from using the J-word.

According to these ridiculous criteria, the excellent Paul Craig Roberts should never be published on this website. Because Roberts never uses the J-word or denied the Holocaust or sung the praises of Adolf Hitler.

Ergo, he has to be a Zionist stooge. 🙂 Talk about Alice in Wonderland logic!

This is a world is which the extremists will tolerate no opinion except their own and regard all moderates with fear and loathing.

Why the attack on lobro? He needs no defense but…
How on earth can you suggest he’s blathering on about Hitler, or more importantly Chamberlain? He’s making an exceptionally valid point. His point is possibly one of the most valid in this whole reply section. He carefully points out that Chamberlain tried to avert war and the murder of millions, whereas Blair most certainly didn’t. Like his predecessor, Churchill, he did as he was told by his Jewish handlers and just as what happened in 1940, he created chaos in this world during his term in office after the attacks on the World Trade Center. Chamberlain is being made out to be the criminal here and why mention him, if not to promote the continuing BS that Hitler, was a threat to the UK and of course memories of what ensued including the gassing of 6trillion Jews?

And this is not an ‘excellent’ article as you suggest. It’s more smoke and mirrors from the Mainly fail newspaper, showing the public, just how insignificant they are to the elites. Osborne is a media whore. He writes what he’s told to write and he can pillory and castigate Blair for a month of Sundays but he will never face charges – PERIOD! So why write this article? What is the purpose of it, other than to inform the ignorant masses they have no voice in this feudal society?

I would far rather be reading an article, by Osborne, speaking of the madness of men and women, the length and breadth of the UK, joining the armed forces daily, so that these megalomaniac politicians, can have their chess board pieces to wage battle all over this world, than some piece about a man who will never face prosecution. Who is going to attack the UK, France, Germany, Italy etc if not the globalist bankers within, stirring the war pot? People all around this world DON’T want to kill each other. It’s their elected politicians, the whores of the bankers who do. Were there no armed forces personnel, to be their assassins, there would be no conflicts.

The only time I see the msm is on Lasha’s site. I binned all desire of perusing that propaganda drivel over ten years ago. Having read this piece, it enforces my reason even more.

Pipe down, Harbinger! I’m not going to get into an argument with you. You pick a quarrel with everyone. I stand by everything I said to Lobro. I have no animosity toward that well-educated and extraordinarily talented man and I hope he has forgiven me for crossing swords with him.

At least he is a reasonable man to talk to and made some concessions to me. He has a respect for the rules of logic. Which is more than you do once you get your teeth into someone! You never budge an inch, do you? You are here to lecture others and ram your opinions down their throats, thinking to yourself: “Harbinger doesn’t suffer fools gladly.”

Great! But I’m not a fool Harbinger and I refuse to chop logic with the likes of you — an illogical hothead if ever there was one!

Learn to be polite, sir, and then I will condescend to entering into civilized discussion with you.

Why are there two articles about Blair in a row? It’s redundant. Should have one article about Blair and the other article about Hillary the other war criminal who is now currently walking away scot free. Or, is Hillary Sacrosant around here and we can’t say one negative thing about her? Except for me, no one at Darkmoon ever mentions Hillary’s name around here. Is the MEGA war criminal for her jew mobster bosses SO SACRED one is not to even utter her name even, Her name is that Holy. She’s So Holy to name Her is a blasphemy. We are not to even know G-d’s name let alone utter The Name, NO, not even in whispers.

“FBI Director James Comey has absolutely no law enforcement background, and is not qualified to run the FBI. To add insult to injury, the FBI Director held an executive position at HSBC Bank, while extreme money laundering operations where being carried out by the Mexican Drug Cartel and their terrorist allies with the direct assistance of HSBC banking officials. I asked my source if Comey would have known, and he replied “he would have to have been drunk 24/7 to not know what was going on”.

In August 2005, Comey left the DOJ and he became General Counsel and Senior Vice President of Lockheed Martin.

In 2010, he became General Counsel at Bridgewater Associates.

In early 2013, he left Bridgewater to become Senior Research Scholar and Hertog Fellow on National Security Law at Columbia Law School. He also joined the London-based board of directors of HSBC Holdings.

In 2013, Comey was appointed as the director of the FBI by President Barack Obama.”

Pat
July 7, 2016 at 3:27 pm

I’ll add….

HSBC was founded to be a drug money laundry. Drugs are the reason it’s Britain’s largest bank. Of course Comey knew. That’s why he’s where he is.

The Bush/Clinton crime family has always been in the drug business. That’s why Hill gets a pass.

The problem isn’t “Hitler supporters”. That would cause outrage among the overwhelming percentage of the population brought up to be Churchill supporters and war supporters. If a mainstream writer makes a stupid statement in support of war it should be pointed out. And if he makes that statement while claiming to be opposed to war it is that much more important that it be pointed out because it was those lies that led to England and France declaring war on Germany.

Or should I stick with the term MISTAKE in British foreign policy, which effectively exonerates Blair because the poor guy made a mistake. You know, everyone makes mistakes, it is human.

Yes, I know what you are trying to say. You are saying that Oborne is trying to let Blair off the hook by suggesting that Blair did no more than make a “mistake.” And to err is only human.

Unfortunately for you, Oborne does no such thing. He argues the very opposite. That Blair lied. Deliberately lied. Oberne said this several times, but clearly you weren’t fully awake when you read the article:

Let’s start with the question of whether Tony Blair deceived the British people in order to make the case for war.

Mr Blair has consistently asserted that he did not lie and that he acted in good faith. For example, the former prime minister told the American TV channel CNN that he apologised ‘for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong’.

Here, Mr Blair was placing the blame on the British intelligence services for producing erroneous information which he, as prime minister, innocently passed on to the British public.

This account of events does not, however, stand up to scrutiny. It is very easy to prove Mr Blair did not simply reiterate what he was told by the intelligence services.

The fact is he exaggerated and misrepresented the intelligence that he received from the Joint Intelligence Committee.

How can you possibly say Oborne is “exonerating” Blair by making out that Blair just made a pardonable human “mistake” when this is what Oborne actually says:

Incredibly, he [Blair] lied to Parliament in his famous speech on March 18, 2003, on the very eve of war.

In this address, Mr Blair systematically distorted the work of the United Nations weapons inspectors, who at the start of March had published a document on the state of knowledge of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

Tony Blair and his foreign secretary, Jack Straw, used this document shamelessly, giving the impression that it contained new and damning evidence that Iraq possessed proscribed weapons.

In reality, it contained little or nothing new.

Crucially, it did not claim that Iraq possessed dangerous weapons or weapons-related materials, merely that certain material was unaccounted for.

Shockingly, Mr Blair did not divulge to Parliament that Kamel also said that all Iraq’s weapons had been destroyed.

To sum up, Tony Blair deliberately deceived the British people and Parliament in order to substantiate his decision to go to war.“

That sounds like an “exoneration” of Tony Blair, does it?

What planet do you come from?

The evidence that Tony Blair lied to Parliament and the British people in order to make the case for an illegal war is very strong indeed…. As a prime mover in the invasion of Iraq, Blair could reasonably be accused of committing a war crime. So, too, could the then U.S. President George W. Bush.

In theory, this means that there’s a case for putting Blair on trial as a war criminal.

You call this “exoneration” of Blair?

My advice to you is to read the WHOLE article in future — not just the first few paragraphs — before you start rubbishing an excellent article.

I will say this and will then shut up on the subject and let the thread develop without my disruption.
To the site management: I am sorry that I commented prematurely and inadvertently hijacked the discussion away from the main subject.

Now, as to the Hitler-worship, I do respect the freedom of religion and don’t impose it on anyone.

But I would only advise you to THINK about the WHOLE subject and not just read it.
Consider the following points:
There are about 7.5 billion people in this world.
About 7.5 billion of them are perfectly aware that Blair is a war criminal and deserves a firing squad at the very least.
The same 7.5 billion are equally aware that NOTHING will happen to Blair, he will continue to prosper at the shabbo speaker circuit, cut ribbons at gala premieres, hobnob with cannibal ghouls at sumptuous yachts, exclusive gatherings of the secret satanic societies at Gstaad and Davos and so on, while the “Occupy” phonies wear “V for Vendetta” smileys.

Bottom line: lots of hot air, nothing done.

And why is that?
You and I know the answer but I incorporate it into this article whereas you do not.
Jew protects Blair, end of story, Blair is safer than Pope in Vatican, for all the outcry in the alternative media chicken coop.
And what is it that protects the Jew?
Precisely these foul memes of fascism-monster, Holy-Holocaust, Evil-Hitler and anyone who doesn’t genuflect to these memes.
So, I see that with that Jew-paternoster quote, Oborne closed the magic circle and added a layer of protection to Blair (I trust, unintentionally).

Because how could anyone ever consider putting Blair on criminal trial if it was never done to Neville Chamberlain, a “far worse criminal“?

“Precisely these foul memes of fascism-monster, Holy-Holocaust, Evil-Hitler and anyone who doesn’t genuflect to these memes.”

Exactly. Enough said!

Some people are just going through a phase that some others already have left behind long ago on their path to the truth. And this ‘Precisely these foul memes of fascism-monster, Holy-Holocaust, Evil-Hitler and anyone who doesn’t genuflect to these memes.’ CANNOT BE STRESSED ENOUGH.

LOBRO,
You may or may not like fish but in either case , you don’t have to swallow its bone ( isolated by HARBINGER below ) : ” making Chamberlain out to be an idiot, in daring to avoid a mass slaughter of men, women and children, in the soon to be WW2.”

Lobro should be thanked for his courage and insight in pointing-out the ways many good journalists perpetuate injustices in time-worn comparisons and reference. Perhaps it is simply a rhetorical tool, convenient for wide recognition – but wrongful, nonetheless. Kudos to you for bringing our attention to it, Lobro! 🙂

“…Tens of thousands of Iraqis died as the fall of Saddam led to a vicious sectarian war between the country’s Shia majority and Sunni minority…”

Tens of thousands? I have seen estimates of 1,4 million deads.

Whatever we can Tony Blair accuse of, we must keep in mind that the Iraq war was a war for Israel and that the Jewish lobby is the real culprit behind it. Heads of state in the West are puppets for the Jews and their crimes are only so many assignments of their Jewish masters. The destruction of Iraq is not a “failure”, it is the success of the Jewish plan for the Middle East (see the Oded Yinon Plan).

Same with the destruction of Libya, a splendid success for the Jews.

Project Syria is still going on, but here there is still no final success (thanks to Putin!).

Another Mainly Fail article, that of course, promotes how the majority feels, but as Lobro has already pointed out with the Neville Chamberlain quote, these media whores have to continue brainwashing the masses into making Chamberlain out to be an idiot, in daring to avoid a mass slaughter of men, women and children, in the soon to be WW2. Churchill the hero, the man behind the Jewish orchestrated cull of the mid 20th century and Chamberlain the villain. What was that quote again by Orwell? ‘War is Pe…..’

People today will read this drivel and then pop down to the pub and parrot it to their mates “See that Chamberlain guy, bad sort innit, wanted to have peace with the devil himself. Lucky Churchill, Mr ‘cigar’ man came along and told that idiot where to go.” That’s right, our mad public, happily indoctrinated drones, think a man who tried to avoid the slaughter of 80+ million people was a coward and the man who instigated it was a hero and yet they’re all baying for Blair, a war criminal, certainly, but no worse than their hero, the fatman himself, Churchill.

What’s happening really is yet more Pavlovian programming of the masses. From the comment section on the Mail, we can see that everyone knows the elites protect their own and have surrendered to their power, as really, what happens to Blair won’t affect their lives. They’ll still have their job, their house, their car, their football, their TV, celebrity and holiday abroad. It’s telling society that they can’t touch the elite and they know it.

You can only stop the elite one way and that’s with a gun. No police will arrest, no judge will try and no lawyer will prosecute and of the establishment’s elites. So whenever they say there’s going to be an ‘enquiry’ it’s simply another way of saying nothing’s going to happen.

Now that I know a gun is the way to STOP the elite, what I want to know now is how does one STOP Uncle from CENSORING posts ALL THE TIME? A gun won’t help, Uncle ain’t elite, low level piece of shit peasant slob gate keeper two-faced pile of trash incapable of keeing an Agreement Uncle himself initiated and proposed and of course agreed to and I do have to say, I knew it the second Uncle “agreed’ to “The Agreement” Uncle would NEVER in a million years keep his word, lying two-faced pile of dog shit in the gutter real low level slob gate keeping troll on someone’s payroll only who knows who and for what reason and for whose agenda who knows Uncle gate keeps, low level pile of slavish peasant shit selling out for a few crumbs whoever throws Uncle some dog bones here and there.

Sorry Joe, I just don’t have time to read garbage all day. You send in 20-30 new posts a day, each post consisting one long paragraph of unmitigated drivel. You belong in Spamblinka because you are obviously a permanent inmate of some mental institution which has allowed you the free use of a computer!

Here are three excerpts from your output today. I don’t mind posting this crap in moderate quantities, but I hope you will forgive me if I don’t make a habit of it.

POST 1 :

like wow dudes it’s blair’s karma, man, to get away with his war crimes I mean that’s like how the Cosmos works and that’s cool and everything cause brahma krishna and kali and the hindoo elephant god with half a dozen arms and legs with a royal crown on its elephant head Oh wow that’s like so groovy a god who is like an elephant Oh man Our religion is so totally hip with-it and where it’s at spiritually man the gods of hindooism are calling us to stupidity and ignorance and Bliss in these days of prophecy so what is everyone getting so uptight about I mean like it’s all good dudes….. smoke some JAH way joosus was a nigroah hebrew joo kanev bosem ganja hipster way cool light being worker pre-cursor to the nigga joo savior avatar jerry garCIA man dudes and chill out on SOMA and Explore the Holographic Universe darkmooner dudes and dudettes….. joosus mulengeon pot-head ganja Don’t Worry Be Happy joo was like a “john-the-baptist” type fore-runner prophet calling out in the wilderness to Our God jerry garCIA Grateful Dead Oh wow man lke so totally Spiritually Ineffably Inspiring Oh ga ga goo goo goo I mean We got alot more Sacred Sacraments in Our Religion than “they” do… how groovy are We!

EXCERPT FROM POST 2 :

. . . the jews wear shoes when they go out to run errands and go get something to eat so it pisses me off dudes I can’t walk around bare foot like a red skin injun Noble savage anyhow, anyway I need first to know how the jews tie their shoes so I’ll know to tie my shoes the opposite of how the joos tie their shoes so I can Liberate myself from the jew way of thinking anf doing things before I can figure out how I should look when I go out in public to do some errands and I think I’m going to stop off somehere and get a bite to eat and maybe after lunch even go to a smart little cafe and sit and lounge and have a cup of espresso or maybe even a cup of Turkish coffee. The joos don’t wear their their dirty pajamas when the joos go to Dizengoff Street to go shopping and get a bite to eat, to sit and lounge at smart little cafes and sip some espresso coffee, so it’s good to know I should really wear some dirty filthy pajamas when I go out today and every day I go out in public to Liberate myself from the joo way of thinking and doing things. The problem is I can’t figure out how the jews ties their shoes so I don’t know to tie my shoes the opposite way from the joos so I can’t leave my domicile I’m stuck here …. FUCK!!! I just missed my doctors appt SHIT!!! And now I gotta pay for an appt I missed. The doctor makes you pay even if you miss an appt, fuckin joo!!!!! I don’t know if my doctor is a joo or not but he sure charges like a joo. if only I knew how the joos tie their shoes I never would have missed my doctor’s appt and wouldn’t have to pay for a missed appt. SHITNOLA Bruthas!!!

SHORT EXCERPT FROM POST 3 :

Videre Licet is a Gift from Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ God, NOT uncle, NOT your conjured-up snake shit gods from all over, what a mish mash of snake shit gods you’re all trying to push on your readers. I knew Darkmoon was TOTAL snakeshit from the very first day I came across DM and that was before I found out “Darkmoon” is code word for the Kabbalah and “lilith” and all that jew-Freemason rats and snakes in a sewer piles of snake and vermin shit…

Whew! How can you spend all day churning out this garbage? What I have published above is not even ONE-TENTH of your output today! And the stuff that remains UNPUBLISHED is even worse! 🙂

I’m afraid my Latin isn’t as good as Lasha’s, so I will use plain English: Kike me once, shame on you; kike me twice, shame on me.

This post was intended for another thread on the Vietnam War but it is just as pertinent here, if not more so, as more people were killed and maimed in that phony war for the kikes — just one of seemingly endless wars for the chosenites:

I just now watched your YouTube video. Powerful stuff! Will send it out. 🙂
The opiate/heroin trade is devastating many in America, too. It embroils all social classes and otherwise productive people. It must be ARRESTED and EXPOSED! Thank you for the history lesson!

“I can look those families and the country in the eye and tell them I did not mislead them. What I cannot do, and will not do, is say that the decision was wrong. I think the world is a safer and better place because of it. I cannot accept that they (British soldiers) died in vain’.”

Shakes head in utter disbelief
…
……
……..Head still shaking

How and I really mean, how on earth can any sane human being say that the world is a better place for the invasion and subsequent destruction of Iraq? He’s obviously giving the speech in the wrong place and should be in Israel, speaking of it instead of the world.
I’m just dumbfounded, that anyone, looking at the current state of affairs, can come up with a reply such as he has…….

I’m tired at looking at images of mothers in the UK crying for losing loved ones. They didn’t become bakers or plumbers for crying out loud. They joined the armed forces and hey, guess what? You kill and are killed in that line of work. You’re a mercenary of the bankers, first contact in foreign lands they want to control and you’re the invasion force.
This is what I mean about the ignorance of people. When was the last time there was a war in the UK? Do these people not realise that was Culloden Moor in 1745, some 270 years ago? And yet, they still join up, they still come back from foreign wars, hailed as heroes, when your average Joe gets banged up for six months, for slapping some attacker walking home, unlike the armed forces personnel who are granted a license to kill. “As long as the government tells you to kill that’s ok sony, remember that!”

It’s all just a load of bollox really. One big plate of hypocrisy soup and nothing more.

“President Barack Obama has pointed out that the destruction of Saddam has led to the rise of Islamic State, the most vicious and terrifying terror group the world has known.”

Islamic State? Really? They burn people alive you say? What of Dresden? Hiroshima?
ISIL is nothing compared with Bush/Blair/Clinton…not to mention Stalin/Roosevelt and the Zionist State.
Or maybe we’re just talking about different divisions of one big satanic terror group?

“President” Barack Obama SHOULD HAVEpointed out that the destruction of Saddam by “President” GW Bush and lesser minions such as Tony Blair at the behest of the Synagogue of Satan has led to the rise creation of Islamic State in the bowels of the same Synagogue of Satan, the most vicious and terrifying terror group the world has known.

To express it otherwise amounts to Lies, the Whole Lies and Nothing but the Lies, so help me G-d.

“My condolences, Mrs Jones but I must with a heavy heart inform you that your child has been run over by a car and the fact that a drunk was behind the steering wheel is an irrelevant coincidence”.

SW knows:

Or maybe we’re just talking about different divisions of one big satanic terror group?

“Rather less attention has been paid to the curious appointment of two historians (which seems a lot, out of a total of five), both strong supporters of Tony Blair and/or the Iraq war. In December 2004 Sir Martin Gilbert, while pointing out that the “war on terror” was not a third world war, wrote that Bush and Blair “may well, with the passage of time and the opening of the archives, join the ranks of Roosevelt and Churchill” – an eccentric opinion that would seem to rule him out as a member of the committee. Sir Lawrence Freedman is the reputed architect of the “Blair doctrine” of humanitarian intervention, which was invoked in Kosovo and Afghanistan as well as Iraq.

Both Gilbert and Freedman are Jewish, and Gilbert at least has a record of active support for Zionism. Such facts are not usually mentioned in the mainstream British and American media, but The Jewish Chronicle and the Israeli media have no such inhibitions, and the Arabic media both in London and in the region are usually not far behind.”